Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) General Information

Suballocation and Competitive Process

1. Which agencies select projects for the suballocated TAP
funds?

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) requires the
following with respect to the selection of TAP projects:

For TAP funds suballocated to urbanized areas with populations over
200,000, the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) representing the
urbanized area(s) is responsible for selecting TAP projects through a
competitive process, in consultation with the State.1
The MPO may use these funds for projects anywhere within the boundaries of the
applicable MPO area, but may choose to restrict these funds only for projects
within the urbanized area boundary.

For TAP funds suballocated to small urban areas (i.e., areas with
populations of 5,001 to 200,000), the State is responsible for selecting TAP
projects through a competitive process.2
The State may make these funds available for projects anywhere within the
metropolitan planning area boundaries of an MPO serving an urbanized area with
a population less than or equal to 200,000. For small urban areas not within
MPOs, the State may make these funds available for projects anywhere within
the municipal boundaries of the applicable small urban area, for example,
within a town or township. Eligible entities within any small urban area also
may apply to the State for "any area" funds.

For TAP funds suballocated to nonurban areas (i.e., areas with populations
below 5,000), the State is responsible for selecting TAP projects through a
competitive process.3

For TAP funds available to any area of the State, the State is responsible
for selecting TAP projects through a competitive process.4
These funds are available for any area of the State: large urbanized areas,
small urban areas, or nonurban areas.

2. For funds suballocated to urban areas with populations of 5,001 to
200,000 and to areas with populations of 5,000 or less, that may be located
within the boundaries of an MPO representing an urbanized area with a population
over 200,000: May a State suballocate these funds to the MPOs and allow the MPOs
to run competitive processes on behalf of the State?

No. MAP-21 does not authorize the State to suballocate the small urban area
funds, nonurban area funds, or any area funds to individual MPOs, counties,
cities, or other local government entities. MAP-21 requires the State to be
responsible for the competitive process for these funds.5
However, the State's competitive process may include selection criteria to
ensure a distribution of projects among small MPOs, other small urban areas, and
nonurban areas across the State. The State may consult with MPOs to ensure that
MPO priorities are considered.

3. For funds suballocated to urbanized areas with populations over
200,000, where two or more areas are within one MPO, may an MPO suballocate
funds among the urbanized areas with populations over
200,000?

Yes. MAP-21 requires suballocation of funds to urbanized areas with
populations over 200,000.6
The State, MPO, and the local government entities representing the urbanized
areas with populations over 200,000 should develop an agreement about how to
suballocate funds among the urbanized areas with populations over 200,000. A
State may obligate the funds based on other factors if the State and MPO jointly
apply to the Secretary for the permission to base the obligation on other
factors and the Secretary grants the request.7

4. May a State or MPO suballocate or set-aside funds for small
businesses, youth corps, or other priorities?

No. MAP-21 does not authorize a State or MPO to suballocate or set-aside
funds for small businesses, youth corps, or other priorities prior to project
selection. The State (or MPO, as applicable) must select projects submitted by
eligible entities and chosen through a competitive process.8
The competitive process may include criteria giving priority to projects that
meet desired goals. See also: Youth
Service and Conservation Corps Questions and Answers, #7.

5. Are there Federal requirements or minimum standards on how to set
up competitive processes described under 23 U.S.C. 213(c)?

TAP does not establish specific standards or procedures for the required
competitive process.9
However, FHWA's TAP
Guidance webpage has links to competitive
process examples, which discuss illustrative selection criteria such as
connectivity to essential services, safety, equity for disadvantaged
populations, and the extent of community support for the project. Also note that
State DOTs and MPOs are not eligible entities as defined under Section
213(c)(4)(B) and therefore are not eligible project sponsors for TAP funds.
State DOTs and MPOs may partner with an eligible entity project sponsor to carry
out a project.

6. Should the FHWA Division office ensure that the State and MPOs
have competitive project selection processes?

Yes. The FHWA Division office should ensure that the State and MPOs have
competitive project selection processes, but there are no formal criteria,
checklists, or certification requirements. The State and MPOs should ensure
adequate public involvement and transparency as they develop their competitive
processes. A competitive process should allow project sponsors to understand the
project selection evaluation criteria.

Yes. The 100 percent Federal share for Tribal projects within Indian
Reservations using TAP funding is allowable. Under 23 U.S.C. 120(f), funds
apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 104 may be used at 100 percent Federal share for
Federal-aid Highways within Indian Reservations. Because TAP funds are a
set-aside of funds apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 104, they are eligible for this
application. Also, under 23 U.S.C. 213(e), TAP projects are treated as "projects
on a Federal-aid highway" and therefore are eligible under 120(f) regardless of
whether they technically are on a Federal-aid highway as long as the project is
within an Indian Reservation. (This provision does not apply to recreational
trail projects carried out under 23 U.S.C. 206 or 213(f)).

2. May other Federal programs match TAP funds?

In general, funds from one Federal program cannot provide the non-Federal
share to match funds from another Federal program, except where the Federal
statute authorizing a program specifically provides that Federal funds made
available for such program can be applied to matching or cost sharing
requirements of other Federal programs.10

The TAP Guidance lists
three exceptions to allow Federal-to-Federal match.

Projects funded under the Recreational Trails Program (RTP) set-aside from
TAP retain the Federal share and flexible match and donation provisions
available under 23 U.S.C. 206(f) and 23 U.S.C. 206(h). These provisions also
remain in effect for prior year RTP funds. See RTP
Federal Share and Matching Requirements. Please note that recreational
trail projects funded from other TAP funds (not from the RTP set-aside) are
subject to the general match requirement for TAP funds.

Section 120(j) allows Federal agency funds to pay the non-Federal share of
the cost of any transportation project that is within, adjacent to, or
provides access to Federal land, for projects funded under title 23 or under
Chapter 53 of title 49.

Section 120(k) allows Federal land and tribal transportation funds to pay
the non-Federal share of the cost of any project that is funded under title 23
or under Chapter 53 of title 49 that provides access to or is within Federal
or tribal land.

A few other Federal programs may allow their funds to match other Federal
program funds, or to be matched with other Federal program funds. Two programs
relevant for TAP are:

Federal programs for youth conservation or service corps, such as AmeriCorps
under 42
U.S.C. 12571, may receive funds from other Federal programs as match. See
AmeriCorps guidance for further information. Note: There is not necessarily
authority to use Federal funds for youth corps programs to match Federal-aid
highway program funds.

3. May a State transfer funds to or from TAP?

Yes. See FHWA Order
4551.1: Fund Transfers to Other Agencies and Among Title 23
Programs. FHWA publishes the amounts that may be transferred in
Supplementary Tables. FY
2013 / FY
2014 / FY
2015

Up to 50 percent of funds apportioned to the National Highway Performance
Program (NHPP), Surface Transportation Program (STP), Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP), and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
(CMAQ) may be transferred to the TAP. Note that projects eligible under TAP are
eligible for STP funds, and STP funds may be used for any project eligible under
TAP without making a transfer.12

A State may transfer up to 50 percent of its total TAP funds to NHPP, STP,
HSIP, and/or CMAQ. This amount must come from the portion of TAP funds available
for use anywhere in the State (no transfers of suballocated TAP funds or funds
set aside for the RTP are permitted).13

Beginning August 1, 2014, section 213(d) gives authority for a State to use
excess TAP funds either for any TAP-eligible activity or for any activity for
which the Secretary has approved the obligation of funds for any State under the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program (23 U.S.C.
149).

How is the flexible funds amount calculated?Beginning
August 1, 2014, and each year thereafter, FHWA will calculate each State's
flexible funds authority under section 213(d). The FHWA Chief Financial
Officer will compare: (1) the State's unobligated balance of available TAP
funds as of August 1, and (2) 100 percent of the amount reserved for the State
for TAP for that fiscal year. The State flexible funds authority is equal to
the amount by which the former exceeds the latter. Any excess TAP funds that
are the result of accumulation of unobligated funds over two or more years of
the program will be available for this additional eligibility.

The term "reserved" means the funds set aside for that fiscal year for TAP
from each State's apportionment from the National Highway Performance Program,
Surface Transportation Program, Highway Safety Improvement Program, CMAQ
Program, and Metropolitan Planning Program, that is, the amount "reserved"
from those programs for the formula distribution of TAP funds to the States.
The "reserved" amount is a statewide amount that includes both suballocated
TAP funds and those available for use in any area of the State. In this
calculation, FHWA will use the total TAP amount net of funds set aside for the
Recreational Trails Program, which is consistent with how FHWA treats the
transferability provision (see www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/notices/n4510776/n4510776_t17.cfm).

What additional eligibility is provided for the flexible funds
amount?In addition to the eligibilities provided under TAP, a
State may obligate an amount of its TAP funds equal to the flexible funds
amount for any activity for which the Secretary has approved the obligation of
funds for any State under the CMAQ Program. The FHWA CMAQ
Program Guidance incorporates eligible activities including projects such
as bicycle and pedestrian programs, transit, traffic and congestion
management, etc. TAP flexible funds that are CMAQ-eligible do not require a
demonstration of emissions reductions, but they should be located in
nonattainment or maintenance areas in States that have them.

Do other TAP requirements apply to a State's flexible funds
amount?Yes. Except for the extension of eligible activities, all
other requirements of the TAP continue, including the requirements in section
213(c) for suballocation of funds to areas based on population, a competitive
project selection process, and entities eligible to compete for TAP
funds.

How are decisions to use flexible funds authority
made?Flexible funds authority is an option available to
qualifying States, but Federal law does not require a State to use that
option. Furthermore, section 213(d) does not address the manner in which the
State may allocate flexible funds authority within its boundaries. However,
because all other requirements of the TAP program still apply, suballocated
funds must remain in the suballocated region. For large urban areas over
200,000, the MPO for the area selects the TAP projects; for all other areas
the State selects the TAP projects. In a State with excess reserve funds, the
State, and the MPOs, determine how much of the flexible authority to devote to
any given project as long as the calculated flexible funds amount is not
exceeded statewide.

How will States account for projects using flexible
funds?The FHWA Chief Financial Officer will establish procedures
and program codes to account for flexible funds obligations in separate
correspondence.

How will the public learn about the flexibility of excess reserve
funding?The FHWA will notify each State of its flexible funds
amount, and will post the State-by-State amounts on its website. States should
notify MPOs of the flexible funds amount and include the information in the
call for applications.

If a State uses its excess reserved TAP funds for CMAQ eligible purposes, may the State obligate those excess reserved funds on any “STP” eligible project, since States can currently obligate CMAQ funds on STP-eligible projects? [From a State without nonattainment areas]

The use of the TAP Flexibility of Excess Reserved Funding provision (23 U.S.C. 213(d) by a Stateis not a transfer of funds under section 126 of title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.), from TAP to CMAQ. The funds remain TAP funds; therefore, they are subject to other TAP requirements in 23 U.S.C. 213, including the requirements for suballocation of funds to areas based on population, a competitive project selection process, and which entities are eligible to compete for TAP funds. For large urban areas with a population over 200,000, the MPO for the area selects the TAP projects; for all other areas, the State selects the TAP projects. Section 213(d) only adds eligibility for CMAQ-eligible projects under 23 U.S.C. 149. The transfer transaction of TAP funds to CMAQ is being used as the mechanism to implement and track the use of this provision by moving the funds to a new FMIS program code, but the funds retain their TAP character.

Under 23 U.S.C. 149(d), two provisions allow States to use CMAQ funds for projects eligible under STP:

1) A State without a nonattainment area or maintenance area (former nonattainment area that is now in compliance) may use its CMAQ funds for any CMAQ- or STP-eligible project. As of February 2015, the states without any nonattainment or maintenance areas include: Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Vermont.

2) States with a nonattainment area or maintenance area that received a minimum apportionment in FY 2009 may use a certain amount of its current CMAQ funds for any STP-eligible project. The amount is based on the proportion of the State's FY 2009 CMAQ apportionment that could be obligated for STP-eligible projects.

Note that the amount that may be obligated for STP-eligible projects is adjusted if a new nonattainment area is designated or a nonattainment area is redesignated as an attainment area.

To be consistent with 23 U.S.C. 149(d), a State that does not have a nonattainment area or maintenance area designated under the Clean Air Act may use flexible excess reserved TAP funds for STP-eligible projects. However, States and MPOs also must comply with other TAP project selection requirements: suballocation, competitive project selection process, eligible entities, and treatment of projects.

Since the amount of current CMAQ funds that may be used for any STP-eligible project for States that received a minimum apportionment in FY 2009 is a maximum amount calculated according to the law, flexible excess reserved TAP funds may not be used for STP-eligible projects in those States in order to not exceed this maximum amount.

5. Are resources available to assist with the Treatment of Projects
requirement?

Planning Requirements and Transportation Improvement Program

Are there specific planning or public involvement requirements or
provisions for TAP projects?

No. TAP projects follow the same transportation planning and public
involvement requirements as other Federal-aid highway program projects. The TAP
planning and project selection process must comply with civil rights laws and
regulations, should address environmental justice principles throughout the
planning and decisionmaking processes, and should ensure adequate public
involvement and transparency.

Transportation projects must be programmed in an MPO's Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP).14
Except in unusual circumstances, TAP projects will not be considered regionally
significant as defined by 23 CFR 450.104 and may be grouped each program year by
function, geographic area, and/or work type in an MPO's TIP and the STIP, rather
than listed individually. See 23 U.S.C. 134(j)(3) for the TIP. See 23 U.S.C.
135(g)(5)(C) for the STIP.

Project Eligibility

See TAP
Eligible Projects Legislation for the text from 23 U.S.C. 213(b)
and 101(a)(29). Eligible TAP projects must be sponsored by an eligible entity
and selected through the competitive process.

1. Is planning eligible as an independent TAP
project?

Yes. Planning for pedestrian and bicycle activities is eligible as an
independent TAP project. Section 101(a)(29) does not specify if "construction,
planning, and design" limits planning to a component of a TAP project, or
whether planning may be an independent project related to projects eligible
under TAP. Title 23 has sections that use "and" to describe both related and
unrelated types of activities, therefore FHWA believes that section 101(a)(29)
can support both planning components and independent planning
projects.

2. Is landscaping and scenic enhancement eligible as an independent
project?

Under the "community improvement activities" category, projects such as
streetscaping and corridor landscaping may be eligible under TAP if sponsored by
an eligible entity and selected through the required competitive process. States
may use TAP funds to meet junkyard screening and removal requirements under 23
U.S.C. 136 if sponsored by an eligible entity and selected through the
competitive process. Landscaping and scenic enhancement features, including
junkyard removal and screening, may be eligible as part of the construction of
any Federal-aid highway project, including any TAP-funded projects.15

3. Is lighting eligible using TAP funds?

Yes. Lighting is eligible for bicycle and pedestrian facilities16
and may be appropriate as part of other eligible TAP categories. Project
sponsors should consider energy-efficient
methods and options that reduce
light pollution.

4. Is utility relocation eligible using TAP funds?

Utility relocation that is necessary to accommodate a TAP-eligible project
may be eligible for Federal reimbursement only if permitted under State law or
policy. Federal law and regulation (23 U.S.C. 123, Relocation of utility
facilities, and 23
CFR 645, Utilities) recognize that some States, by State law or
policy, prohibit using public funds to relocate utilities; in these States, it
is illegal to use TAP funds to relocate utilities.17

5. Are road diets eligible using TAP funds?

Road
Diets are among FHWA's Proven
Safety Countermeasures. If work to benefit eligible TAP activities would
cause impacts to a highway, requiring reconstruction resulting in a road diet,
then TAP funds may cover most costs of a road diet.

6. Are bike sharing systems eligible for TAP
funds?

Yes. Bike sharing systems are eligible for Federal-aid highway program funds,
including TAP funds. See Frequently
asked Questions and Answers concerning Bike Sharing. In addition to bike
sharing docks, equipment, and other capital costs, FHWA funds from several
sources, including TAP, may be used to purchase bicycles that are integral to a
bike sharing system. Federal-aid highway program funds cannot be used for
operational costs.

7. What is eligible under "construction of turnouts, overlooks, and
viewing areas"?

The activity "construction of turnouts, overlooks, and viewing areas" may use
the criteria for "scenic overlooks" described in 23
CFR 752.6: "Scenic overlooks may provide facilities equivalent to those
provided in safety rest area[s]" described in 23
CFR 752.5.18

8. Does the transportation purpose requirement in 23 U.S.C. 217(i)
apply to trail projects funded under TAP or STP?

No. MAP-21 revised 23 U.S.C. 133(b) (STP) and added transportation
alternatives and recreational trail projects as eligible STP projects and
enacted §213(b) (TAP) to allow eligibility for recreational trails projects
eligible under the RTP. This conflicts with 23 U.S.C. 217(i), which requires
that bicycle facilities "be principally for transportation, rather than
recreation, purposes". Effective under MAP-21, the requirement in 23 U.S.C.
217(i) does not apply to bicycle facilities using STP or TAP funds. However,
Section 217(i) continues to apply to bicycle facilities using other Federal-aid
highway program funds (NHPP, HSIP, CMAQ, etc.). Note that Section 217(i) makes
the transportation requirement applicable only to bicycle projects; it does not
apply to any other trail use or transportation mode.

9. Are resilience improvements eligible for TAP
funds?

Making transportation systems more resilient to changing environmental
conditions is an important aspect of maintaining a state of good
repair. Federal-aid highway planning and projects, including activities
funded via TAP, may include climate and extreme weather resiliency elements to
make transportation systems more reliable. For further information, please see
FHWA guidance on funding climate
adaptation.

Recreational Trails Program (RTP)

1. How does the RTP change under MAP-21?

MAP-21 makes RTP funding a set-aside from the TAP. Unless the Governor opts
out in advance, an amount equal to the State's FY 2009 RTP apportionment is to
be set aside from the State's TAP funds for recreational trails projects. RTP
requirements under 23 U.S.C. 206 continue to apply to RTP set-aside
funds.19

2. Are there new RTP requirements that apply to the RTP set-aside
funds?

Yes. Under 23 U.S.C. 213(f)(2), each State shall "return 1 percent of those
funds to the Secretary for the administration of that program."20
This is comparable to the requirement under SAFETEA-LU for FHWA to take funds
off the top of the RTP funding for this purpose before apportioning the funds to
the States.

Each State shall "comply with the provisions of the administration of the
recreational trails program, including the use of apportioned funds."21
Therefore, RTP requirements under 23 U.S.C. 206 continue to apply to RTP
set-aside funds.

"A State may opt out of the recreational trails program [set-aside] if the
Governor of the State notifies the Secretary not later than 30 days prior to
apportionments being made for any fiscal year."22

3. Did MAP-21 change which agency manages the RTP
set-aside?

No. The statute requires the State Governor to designate the State agency or
agencies to administer the RTP.23
States should have Stewardship and Oversight Plans to outline the roles and
responsibilities of the FHWA and the State agency or agencies that administer
the RTP. See an Example (HTML
/ PDF).

4. Do the provisions in 23 U.S.C. 206, which governed RTP before
MAP-21, still apply to the RTP under MAP-21?

Yes. While RTP funds will be a set-aside of TAP funds, MAP-21 provides that
States must comply with the provisions of section 206 when using the MAP-21
set-aside funds.24
This includes following the provisions in section 206(d) relating to the use of
funds. It also allows use of the Federal share provisions in section 206(f) and
project administration provisions in section 206(h). See the RTP
Guidance.

5. Is the State Recreational Trail Advisory Committee still
required?

Yes. For a State to be eligible to use funds set aside for the RTP under 23
U.S.C. 213(f), the State must comply with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 206,
including the requirement under 23 U.S.C. 206(c)(2) that "...the State shall
establish a State
recreational trail advisory committee that represents both motorized and
nonmotorized recreational trail users, which shall meet not less often than once
per fiscal year." If a State does not meet this requirement, it is not eligible
to use RTP set-aside funds.25

6. What is the RTP Opt-Out Provision?

MAP-21 allows the Governor of the State to opt out of the set-aside for the
RTP on an annual basis.26
Notice N4510.755
provided instructions on how to opt out of the program for FY 2013 and Notice N 4510.767
provided instructions for FY 2014.

7. If a State opts out of the RTP, can it fund recreational trail
projects with TAP funds?

Yes. Recreational trail projects are eligible for TAP funds, but the RTP
provisions and requirements under 23 U.S.C. 206 would not apply.27
Recreational trails projects funded with TAP funds other than the RTP set-aside
are subject to the requirements in 23 U.S.C. 213, including selection through a
competitive process. The "treatment of projects" provision under 23 U.S.C.
213(e) would apply; this means that projects would have to be treated as
projects on Federal-aid highways.28

8. What happens to the funding if a State opts out of the
RTP?

The funds remain part of the TAP.

9. If a State opts out of the RTP, will it still have access for
administrative funds to administer projects from previous
years?

No. The ability to use RTP funds for State administrative costs is limited to
a percentage "of the apportionment made to the State for the fiscal year" (which
would include the RTP set-aside funds).29
If there is no apportionment, then there is no program to administer, and the
administrative funds cannot be permitted.

10. May a State carry over and use RTP administrative funds from
previous years?

No. Under 23 U.S.C. 206(d)(2)(H), RTP administrative funds are limited to
"costs to the State incurred in administering the program, but in an amount not
to exceed 7 percent of the apportionment made to the State for the fiscal
year" (emphasis added). The limitation is subject to the amount necessary
within a fiscal year, and does not carry over. A State cannot carry over
administrative funds from Year 1 because that would increase the administrative
funds available in Year 2. RTP funds obligated for administrative costs but not
expended within a fiscal year must be deobligated and used for on-the-ground
trail projects. The restriction applies to all RTP funds, including funds
apportioned prior to the enactment of MAP-21. Note: The RTP
Guidance from 1999 stated: "If a State uses less than 7 percent for
administrative costs or less than 5 percent for educational costs, the funds
must be used for trail projects."

To cover administrative costs at the beginning of a fiscal year, States may
request authorization to obligate administrative costs as an Advance
Construction project, which is allowable under 23 U.S.C. 115 and 23
CFR 630 Subpart G.

11. If a State opts out of the RTP, will it still have access for
educational funds? Is there a limit on how much may be used for
education?

Yes. States may use TAP or STP funds for recreational trail educational
programs. The educational activities eligible under the RTP do not depend on the
existence of a program. Therefore, even if a State opts out of the RTP, it may
fund recreational trail educational programs under TAP or STP. Because there is
no specific apportionment for a State that opts out of the RTP, there is no
limitation on the funds available for recreational trail educational programs
using TAP or STP funds.

12. May a State carry over and use RTP educational funds from
previous years?

No. Under 23 U.S.C. 206(d)(2)(G), RTP educational funds are limited to the
"development and dissemination of publications and operation of educational
programs to promote safety and environmental protection, (as those objectives
relate to one or more of the use of recreational trails, supporting non-law
enforcement trail safety and trail use monitoring patrol programs, and providing
trail-related training), but in an amount not to exceed 5 percent of the
apportionment made to the State for the fiscal year". The limitation is subject
to the amount necessary within a fiscal year, and does not carry over. RTP funds
obligated for educational costs but not expended within a fiscal year must be
deobligated and used for on-the-ground trail projects. This restriction applies
to all RTP funds, including funds apportioned prior to the enactment of
MAP-21.

13. How does a State account for the 40-30-30 percentage requirements
if the sum of the percentages based on the apportionment exceeds the funds
available to the State?

MAP-21 created a potential conflict for the requirements for 40 percent
diverse use, 30 percent motorized use, and 30 percent nonmotorized use, because
the 40-30-30 percentage requirements apply to the full apportionment before the
return of 1 percent to the USDOT for administrative purposes. The RTP
guidance for State Suballocations explains how States can meet the 40-30-30
requirements by selecting projects that qualify simultaneously under the
motorized and diverse categories or the nonmotorized and diverse
categories.

14. Are recreational trails projects eligible under other Federal-aid
programs?

Yes. Recreational trail projects that would be eligible under the RTP are
broadly eligible under STP and TAP.30
TAP provisions and requirements under section 213 apply to recreational trail
projects using TAP funds (other than RTP set-aside funds). STP provisions and
requirements apply to STP funds used for recreational trails projects.

15. Does the transferability provision apply to the RTP? Can a State
transfer funds from the RTP to TAP?

No. See FHWA Order
4551.1: Fund Transfers to Other Agencies and Among Title 23
Programs. MAP-21 does not have a transferability provision for the RTP
set-aside. Some projects may be eligible both under the RTP and TAP, and a State
can choose whether to obligate RTP or TAP funds for such projects. Also, States
have broad discretion to use STP funds for projects eligible under TAP or RTP.
Note that if a State opts out of the RTP, such funds remain TAP funds, and the
transferability provisions pertaining to TAP would apply.

MAP-21 removed the authority to transfer funds to or from the RTP. MAP-21
revised 23 U.S.C. 126 and (among other changes) replaced "under section 104 or
144" with "under section 104(b)". RTP funds apportioned prior to MAP-21 were
apportioned under section 104(h) (which MAP-21 removed), not under section
104(b).31

Safe Routes to School (SRTS)

1. Are Safe Routes to School Program (SRTS) coordinators required as
under SAFETEA-LU Section 1404(f)(3)?

No. SRTS coordinators are not required under MAP-21 but are eligible for
funding under TAP.

2. Does the requirement from SAFETEA-LU Section 1404(f)(2)(B) that
States allocate "not less than 10 percent and not more than 30 percent..." of
SRTS funds for noninfrastructure activities still apply?

No. This division of funding between infrastructure and noninfrastructure
projects does not exist in MAP-21. It does apply to remaining SRTS funds from
SAFETEA-LU.

3. Is travel for SRTS project-specific site visits or to conferences
an eligible activity?

Yes. Travel directly related to a specific project is eligible under
SAFETEA-LU Section 1404(f)(2)(A). Travel related to "training, volunteers, and
managers of safe routes to school programs" is eligible as a
noninfrastructure-related activity.

4. Is a local SRTS coordinator position an eligible
expense?

Yes, this eligibility is maintained in MAP-21. SAFETEA-LU Section
1404(f)(2)(A) lists "managers of safe routes to school programs" as eligible
under the noninfrastructure projects.

5. May States prioritize SAFETEA-LU SRTS funds for low-income
neighborhoods?

Yes. States may give priority for SAFETEA-LU SRTS funds (available at 100
percent Federal share) for communities and projects that benefit low-income
neighborhoods.

Boulevards from Divided Highways

How is a boulevard defined?

A boulevard is defined as a:

Walkable, low-speed (35 mph or less) divided arterial
thoroughfare in urban environments designed to carry both through and local
traffic, pedestrians and bicyclists. Boulevards may be long corridors,
typically four lanes but sometimes wider, serve longer trips and provide
pedestrian access to land. Boulevards may be high-ridership transit corridors.
Boulevards are primary goods movement and emergency response routes and use
vehicular and pedestrian access management techniques. Curb parking is
encouraged on boulevards.

Planning, designing, or constructing boulevards
and other roadways largely in the right-of-way of former Interstate System
routes or other divided highways.

Title 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(29)

Transportation alternatives.--The term "transportation alternatives" means
any of the following activities when carried out as part of any program or
project authorized or funded under this title, or as an independent program or
project related to surface transportation:

Construction, planning, and design of on-road and off- road trail
facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other nonmotorized forms of
transportation, including sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian and
bicycle signals, traffic calming techniques, lighting and other
safety-related infrastructure, and transportation projects to achieve
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101
et seq.).

Construction, planning, and design of infrastructure-related projects
and systems that will provide safe routes for non-drivers, including
children, older adults, and individuals with disabilities to access daily
needs.

Conversion and use of abandoned railroad corridors for trails for
pedestrians, bicyclists, or other nonmotorized transportation users.

address stormwater management, control, and water pollution prevention
or abatement related to highway construction or due to highway runoff,
including activities described in sections 133(b)(11), 328(a), and 329;
or

reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality or to restore and maintain
connectivity among terrestrial or aquatic
habitats.

Note: For §101(a)(29)(E), FHWA defines "including" as "which include, but not
limited to".